[ExI] Cryonics is getting weird

[samantha]

spike wrote:
>> ...On Behalf Of BillK
>>     
> ... 
>   
>> But it looks to me like winning a battle and losing the war... 
>> they should have said was that they were unable to fulfill 
>> the contract due to deliberate obstructionism from the 
>> relatives and refused to return the money to the relatives...
>> BillK
>>     
>
> BillK makes a compelling case for quadrant 2 on the grounds that it is
> better PR for Alcor and cryonics in general.
>
> Quad 1) refund, no dig
> Quad 2) no refund, no dig
> Quad 3) refund, dig
> Quad 4) no refund, dig.
>
>   
I choose quadrant 2.  Alcor was prevented from fulfilling the letter of 
the contract but was guilty of no sort of breach of contract.  The 
contract should / could be written so there is no refund except by the 
express wishes of the person that made the contract.   No refund except 
in express circumstances is not uncommon.  The dig was pointless, 
emotionally punitive and bad PR. 

- samantha


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100517/c671ac73/attachment.html>